PDA

View Full Version : Even Poser Beats NT to a PS Plug (using Collada no less)



gerry_g
08-12-2007, 06:11 PM
Just downloaded Beta version of Poser plugin for PS that uses Collada for file transfer, very neat very efficient, no screw ups. Apparently they're (e-frontier) bringing out a Pro Poser with scene hosting plugins, LW Mac & PC both, way things are going NT'll be the last people on the planet to ship a working PS import bridge.

RedBull
08-12-2007, 06:52 PM
Just downloaded Beta version of Poser plugin for PS that uses Collada for file transfer, very neat very efficient, no screw ups. Apparently they're (e-frontier) bringing out a Pro Poser with scene hosting plugins, LW Mac & PC both, way things are going NT'll be the last people on the planet to ship a working PS import bridge.

Yes Collada which has been mentioned for 9.x is really important for industry collaboration.

I Read this yesterday from www.opengl.org

"COLLADA will have another great BOF this year, with demonstrations of FX Composer 2.0, C4 Engine, 3DS Max, Maya, AgentFX, Verse, Poser, XSI, Anark Studio, COLLADA RT and Photoshop CS3."

My thoughts when reading it were:

Obviously you know your using the wrong software, when Max, Maya, C4D, XSI and Poser, PS3, Blender all have Collada and LW does not.

LW Doesn't like to play well with the other children in the sandbox anymore...
And it's getting to a point of stupidity....

Mr Rid
08-12-2007, 10:20 PM
Obviously you know your using the wrong software, when Max, Maya, C4D, XSI and Poser, PS3, Blender all have Collada and LW does not.


And now even free Daz.

Ztreem
08-13-2007, 03:03 AM
Yes, it's sad to see that LW has so few and bad importers and exporters, it can hardly export a decent .obj even when it support it.

I just played a little with XSI, even though I can't do anything in it yet, it feels like fresh wind using it. I just tested to load a .iges file into XSI and it woked flawless. Ahhh, it's so nice to be able to load and create NURBS in a 3D program without converting it to polys. Lightwave needs to improve alot in 9.x cycle if they want to impress me, that's for sure.

Andyjaggy
08-13-2007, 10:46 AM
Yep pretty frickin ridiculous.

LW_Will
08-13-2007, 04:31 PM
Yes Collada which has been mentioned for 9.x is really important for industry collaboration.

I Read this yesterday from www.opengl.org

"COLLADA will have another great BOF this year, with demonstrations of FX Composer 2.0, C4 Engine, 3DS Max, Maya, AgentFX, Verse, Poser, XSI, Anark Studio, COLLADA RT and Photoshop CS3."

My thoughts when reading it were:

Obviously you know your using the wrong software, when Max, Maya, C4D, XSI and Poser, PS3, Blender all have Collada and LW does not.

LW Doesn't like to play well with the other children in the sandbox anymore...
And it's getting to a point of stupidity....


Um... I don't think that Lightwave "Doesn't like to play well with the other children in the sandbox"... What have they been doing? Oh yeah... giving you a dot release with more stuff than Max/Maya are getting from the PAID version releases. Maybe, just maybe, they are too busy to look up and see what's going on.

There seems to be a tendency for the din from the chorus around here to be "Make it faster, better, with THIS feature...". Seems to me that they are able to do a lot for you, give them a break otherwise.

Oh, and by the way, seems to me if you think it should be done fast you have access to the same resources that the guys from Newtek have... go make a plugin. And it should be out in a week, right?

Well... what are you waiting for? Go!

zapper1998
08-13-2007, 05:55 PM
oh wow
omg
oh no
were being left in the dust again...or the mud puddle i can't remember which now

Mr Rid
08-13-2007, 06:17 PM
... What have they been doing? Oh yeah... giving you a dot release with more stuff than Max/Maya are getting from the PAID version releases. Maybe, just maybe, they are too busy to look up and see what's going on.

Seems rosier lately, but that seems to have been the problem for years- not looking at what's going on.



Oh, and by the way, seems to me if you think it should be done fast you have access to the same resources that the guys from Newtek have... go make a plugin. And it should be out in a week, right?

Well... what are you waiting for? Go!


If NT is behind, it's not really the responsibility of the pro users. It's easier and more cost efficient to just use a different app. Then it becomes NT's problem. Its like I heard from someone that worked at the longtime LW house, MeniThings, that a main reason they chose a Maya pipeline for their first feature was that it was calculated to be much cheaper to script the needed tools in Maya than it was to buy all the plugin licenses needed to fill the same gap in LW where scripting fell short. If supply isnt meeting the demand, then you go shop at a different store. You dont necessarily build your own.

Sekhar
08-13-2007, 10:43 PM
NT may actually be working on this...found this earlier in a Google search: http://www.osflash.org/pipermail/papervision3d_osflash.org/2007-May/005737.html. Anyone know this developer?

RedBull
08-13-2007, 10:53 PM
NT may actually be working on this...found this earlier in a Google search: http://www.osflash.org/pipermail/papervision3d_osflash.org/2007-May/005737.html. Anyone know this developer?

Chuck has mentioned before that both FBX update and Collada are planned over the 9.x cycle. (Still would of been nice to have it at Siggraph and hype to integration)

Off course it's likely they will have to update it too.... :(

Phil
08-14-2007, 02:24 AM
Um... I don't think that Lightwave "Doesn't like to play well with the other children in the sandbox"... What have they been doing? Oh yeah... giving you a dot release with more stuff than Max/Maya are getting from the PAID version releases. Maybe, just maybe, they are too busy to look up and see what's going on.

And there would be the mistake. You occasionally need to stop and look around to ensure you are still heading in the right direction. Especially if you are asking people to pay for the ride before you get to the destination.


There seems to be a tendency for the din from the chorus around here to be "Make it faster, better, with THIS feature...". Seems to me that they are able to do a lot for you, give them a break otherwise.

Not entirely fair. There are a lot of people wanting to see some work on the animation system or the modelling system. Post-9.0, the focus appears to have been on the renderer. We've yet to see anything happen to the animation system and Modeler is also left largely untouched.

With only 10 developers (counting the names in the about box), of course, it's a concern as to how many tasks can be run in parallel. We're a year past the 9.0 release, so it's not surprising that some are getting a little impatient. I'm beginning to be frustrated by the lack of any progress on the animation side, for example.


Oh, and by the way, seems to me if you think it should be done fast you have access to the same resources that the guys from Newtek have... go make a plugin. And it should be out in a week, right?

Well... what are you waiting for? Go!

Hmm. SDK access would be the limiter here. NewTek do not provide access to all areas in the SDK, otherwise Worley would not continue to need a separate GI panel in FPrime 3, and developers would be able to talk to Nodal and query the nodes.

Relativity, etc. would also greatly benefit from LScript support. This is a massive hole in functionality that really should have been addressed as soon as Relativity was acquired. Shipping a new component without LScript support should not be acceptable. Retrofitting support to legacy components is more tricky, but new stuff should only be allowed on the basis that it is open to access via the SDK and LScript.

colkai
08-14-2007, 02:28 AM
Quick Question,
Say Newtek decided to focus on giving you collada facilities over say work on modeller tools or some other "must have" feature.
Would you be happy then? Err, likely no, because, why spend time on object exporters when there are more important things to do?

As LW_Will says, development folks, it is NOT a miracle profession, if I'm working on one section of code, you can bet, I ain't working on something else. I dunno, when it comes to software people think it is sooo easy and fast to do everything yesterday.
Strange, when one considers the complaints that clients think the same of 3D work, ya know, the computer does all the work guys so with all that free time you have waiting for it to finish your work for you, you could write tons of plugins.
After all coding is fast N easy right? ;) :p

Wonderpup
08-14-2007, 03:26 AM
The problem I have at the moment is that NT seem to be focusing on what they can do rather than what needs to be done- the development seems to be dictated more by the interests and talents of the developers rather than the advertised feature set I bought into.

As a consequence I find I have purchased an upgrade that contains a well implemented and impressive feature set that I did not buy, and the features I paid for seem as far away as ever- so while I appreciate what's been done, it's not what I paid for- so in this situation do I have the right to complain or not?

How can I make intelligent decisions about software purchasing if the developer is going to say, in effect " We can't deliver the four wheel drive we promised, but here's a more expensive sports car instead!"

Thats great, and it does seem crass to complain about the great stuff that's been done- but I really needed that four wheel drive.

prospector
08-14-2007, 08:16 AM
the 9 cycle isn't over yet. Everything that was promised for the 9 cycle will most likely be in it. we're only up to 9.2.

Wonderpup
08-14-2007, 11:13 AM
the 9 cycle isn't over yet. Everything that was promised for the 9 cycle will most likely be in it.


There are indications that this is not true-certainly there is no evidence whatsoever that the promised modeler/layout tool integration has even begun.

I don't think polishing the existing structure will take things much further so the future is very unclear at this point- I was really hoping to see some progress on the integration front by now.

colkai
08-14-2007, 11:53 AM
As I was expecting modeller tools.
However, I do believe it's a mistake to assume that Newtek are simply "polishing the structure".
Let's be honest here, both Jay and Chuck have made it plain that there is still a lot to do within the LW9 cycle.

It baffles me why so many are behaving as if the devlopment cycle is all but finished when there has been nothing at all from Newtek to even hint at that, if anything, quite the contrary.

I know I harp on about this, but folks should just take one step back for a second and put what they do in a similar light.
Unless you are the one doing the work with the spec in front of you, you cannot begin to understand the workload or the time it may take to produce.

Failing to produce a certain shot in FX due to limitations of budget / time / unexpected problems is not seen as someone not doing their job.
We coders have our own set of problems too you know.

LW_Will
08-14-2007, 12:31 PM
To Mr Rid and all the rest of you who have said that this "problem" with Newtek is systematic and long term with Newtek...

Why haven't you gone to your new app yet?

Because, I would speculate, that you get very good teatment from Newtek and Lightwave3d. You don't have to pay for a list of bug swats...

I think that the information about Meni going with Maya seems to me to be par for the course. Of course, you can actually program in MEL, which is okay. I think that it is for most houses, the right thing to do. Not for me, who is a lone person.

There is nothing done in 3D that cannot be done in Lightwave. That is a fact.

Phil... a converter from Collada to LW could, would and probably should be written as a 3rd party app... you have the specs for the Collada format, you have the specs for the LW obj and scene files... where is that limited by the SDK?

If you guys don't want to go to another app, and I think that is a totally legitimate way to go, btw... stop whining about a problem that you could solve. (Oh, and btw, that Collada app should be free, right?)

If you see a problem and don't solve it you are part of that problem.

Thanks Colkai... EXACTLY the point I was getting at.

LW_Will
08-14-2007, 12:39 PM
I also agree that some tools should be redesigned in Modeler.

(Ever notice that allot of the tools in Modo are multi tools for multi functions? Interesting that...)

I think the nodal and render items, with all the other new tools in the current package, is holding them back a bit.

See, I think the real problem with LW is that there is no programming language.
I think the only way to get that is to build a language from the ground up.
I also think that if they did that, they would loose the actual legacy code that is in Modeler and Layout.
They would have to make new applications.

I don't think that is necessarily a good idea.

Cageman
08-14-2007, 01:55 PM
I believe there are a couple of things that led to the Renderer having most of the love so far.

1. High-end users/studios who still use LW use it mainly for Rendering (arch-viz, VFX for TV and Film etc). Most of these studios/individuals have added other tools in the pipeline to aid where LW suffers the most (Animation/Dynamics). So, analyzing the situation 1-2 years ago, NT figured that the most important feature of LW is the renderer. By fixing it first, they would assure that the high-end users/studios would stay with LW, at least for the renderer.

2. The new AA, Cameratools, Motionblur etc reached the point of implementation alot faster than anticipated. Rather than wait to implement it, they made space so they could fit it into LW earlier than expected (LW9.2), but when doing that they sacrificed time that otherwise had gone to other things. But NT further improved thier renderer with an order of magnitude and assured that thier renderer was on par with other industry leading engines.

Well, thats my theory anyway.. :)

MooseDog
08-14-2007, 02:26 PM
I believe there are a couple of things that led to the Renderer having most of the love so far.

1. High-end users/studios who still use LW use it mainly for Rendering (arch-viz, VFX for TV and Film etc). Most of these studios/individuals have added other tools in the pipeline to aid where LW suffers the most (Animation/Dynamics). So, analyzing the situation 1-2 years ago, NT figured that the most important feature of LW is the renderer. By fixing it first, they would assure that the high-end users/studios would stay with LW, at least for the renderer.

2. The new AA, Cameratools, Motionblur etc reached the point of implementation alot faster than anticipated. Rather than wait to implement it, they made space so they could fit it into LW earlier than expected (LW9.2), but when doing that they sacrificed time that otherwise had gone to other things. But NT further improved thier renderer with an order of magnitude and assured that thier renderer was on par with other industry leading engines.

Well, thats my theory anyway.. :)

smart decision on the whole (including both strategic and accidental decisions). also, correct me if i'm wrong but didn't mark granger and jay roth either/both come from lightscape? a renderer known for speed and finesse.

ivanze
08-14-2007, 03:58 PM
Electric Image not Lightscape.

alifx
08-14-2007, 04:01 PM
as far as I know Lightscape is merged into the scan line renderer of 3ds max

MooseDog
08-14-2007, 05:51 PM
Electric Image not Lightscape.

:thumbsup:

Phil
08-14-2007, 11:05 PM
There is nothing done in 3D that cannot be done in Lightwave. That is a fact.

Not entirely true. You cannot have raytraced volumetrics in LW - they are implemented using a cheap hack, which is why they don't respect the light path that raytracing itself determines. This would be a real help in a decent number of situations, even in the render penalty is high.

You cannot create accurate volumetric caustics in LW. This helps sell specific shots, but since you make such a sweeping generalisation, I feel that this is appropriate here (and, yes, I have needed this in the past for specific clients)

If I were to nail your statement down to its content, you'd preclude any plugins other than those in the box. I'm not sure how you make convincing non-blobby smoke with HVs - I've never seen it accomplished. Generating massive numbers of objects without LW collapsing in a heap is difficult without HDInstance. Rendering to really high resolution is nigh-on impossible because LW fails to allocate enough memory on any 32-bit machine to be able to meet the claims written on the side of the box, and has done for years.

Now, if you modify your declaration to recognise that other applications offer additional capabilities (e.g. fluids), then you recognise that your original statement does not hold as much water as everyone might like it to.


Phil... a converter from Collada to LW could, would and probably should be written as a 3rd party app... you have the specs for the Collada format, you have the specs for the LW obj and scene files... where is that limited by the SDK?

I saw your comment more generally, as though any issue in LW could be rendered null and void by some 3rd party cracking open a compiler. Apologies if I misunderstood your comment. There are great swathes of LW that are not open to access via the SDK, and even more that shun LScript entirely.

Dodgy
08-15-2007, 12:09 AM
What jay et al need to really address is the plugin sdk and lscripting. If they did that, like they did with nodal, you'd see the same kind of plugin explosion as was seen when nodes appeared. However, they need a stable core, which is what they're working on. So it's all coming, but the sooner the better.

colkai
08-15-2007, 02:21 AM
What jay et al need to really address is the plugin sdk and lscripting.
I agree, I think that the whole programming side of LW needs to be expanded, after all, you don't have to use it if it's there, but it's obvious from reading comments by people using it that they feel "tied" at times.

I also think that it's more likely that Newtek are aware of it and are trying very hard to juggle the needs of the many with the resources they have.

Sometimes, whether we like it or not, and sometimes I'm as bad as others, we just need to be more patient and be aware this is a very big job.

The hard thing to grasp for non-coders is just how difficult it is to keep software "out there" whilst totally overhauling it.
Kudos really does go to Newtek for not only doing this but feeding us changes as and when they occur. If anything, I'm actually finding it hard to keep up with the releases, but it doesn't mean I ain't glad they're coming. :)

That's hard, it really is, the pressure on coding like that is pretty high, don't envy them at all. No Sir Boba-rooney! :newtek:

Dodgy
08-15-2007, 03:22 AM
If they expand the sdk and lscript first though, a lot of people could plug the gaps while they work on the rest :)

Lightwolf
08-15-2007, 03:35 AM
If they expand the sdk and lscript first though, a lot of people could plug the gaps while they work on the rest :)
The problem is (from a commercial developers PoV) that plugging the gaps doesn't get you far.
However, if free plugins fill the gaps... fine.
Collada, as an example, is quite complex as a file format (loads of different ways to store the same information in places). I can see a free plugin support some of it... but it is up to NT to develop i/o up to the complete spec (since they more or less committed to it).
Right now this would be a waste of time for a commercial developer though.

Cheers,
Mike

Wonderpup
08-15-2007, 04:10 AM
It baffles me why so many are behaving as if the devlopment cycle is all but finished when there has been nothing at all from Newtek to even hint at that, if anything, quite the contrary.


Check the open beta forums for more info on this.


Why haven't you gone to your new app yet?

I'm not wanting to disparage the work thats been done on the rendering side- I'm am really happy to have the new stuff too, but the reason I stayed with lightwave when 9 was announced (I was about to order XSI) was because I was promised a more integrated program- but since that time there has been virtually no progress on that front nor does there seem likely to be in the near future.

Now if this was the result of a strategic decision- if the plans were changed for some reason, then it would have been nice to have been informed, rather than kept totally in the dark, at least then I could have made informed decisions about how to proceed.

And yes it is pointless to complain about it, and I'm sure that NT are as frustrated as I am that things are not moving faster but I think it's legitimate to ask where is all this going? If the intent is to turn lightwave into a rendering option for other apps, then its a very crowded field these days.

If the intent is to compete as a general purpose 3D app, then the integration issue should (have) been top priority, in my opinion, since without integration any future development will be hamstrung by the split. The reason I am about to lay down a lot of money for XSI is, above all, my need for a more flexible working environment.

colkai
08-15-2007, 05:05 AM
And yes it is pointless to complain about it, and I'm sure that NT are as frustrated as I am that things are not moving faster but I think it's legitimate to ask where is all this going? If the intent is to turn lightwave into a rendering option for other apps, then its a very crowded field these days.

I'd be amazed if that was at all the case and to be fair, Jay has more or less said what he can given what they are doing. It's such a weird beast coding, only once the dust has settled sometimes can you be sure what can and cannot be done.
Fair to say, we are all a little frustrated and as you rightly point out, you can bet to count Newtek in that list of people. I can see however that not saying 100% what the path is is the right thing to do.

One, they may, or may not , reach all their goals, two, can you imagine the furore if someone's "must have feature" is bypassed because somebody else's "must have feature" is being implemented?

I'm just grateful my work is more cut N dried than coding in the graphics area. :)

Wonderpup
08-15-2007, 01:37 PM
What really persuaded me to stay with lightwave when 9 was announced was the sense that there was (at last) a plan- one that would be followed. But what seems to have happened is the road became rocky, so a different road was chosen instead- so, no more plan. The path became the one of least resistance. ( not saying it was easy- just easier.)

So we seem to be back to the 'bolt on' philosophy of grafting features onto the current set up rather than the fundemental changes I was led to belive would be occuring, changes that would begin to see the integration of the two halves of the software. Perhaps I was dumb to belive what I was told, but there it is- I did belive it.

All of this is academic for me now, I guess, as I have plan of my own, which is to spend a lot of money I can't afford on a new app and so blackmail myself into having to learn it.

LW_Will
08-15-2007, 03:49 PM
I don't think that because the road is rocky, you get off the road. I think Jay, et al, knows that down that road is the ultimate goal.

I think that pulling the code apart and putting back together makes some things break.

Its like those guys on BOZO CIRCUS who would spin the plates...

I don't think we are mixing metaphors anymore, I think the blender is on frappe'.

stevecullum
08-15-2007, 06:07 PM
I think the apparent lack of progress in Lightwave 9.x cycle has to do with how quickly things keep changing and evolving with other apps.

Autodesk and Avid (Softimage's parent) both have lots of cash and don't have to worry too much about developing their render engines, given Mental Images and 3rd parties are doing most of the leg work on that side of things.

So they are left to develop the other tools, where as NT has to develop of all aspects of the software.

Its frustrating, but I think NT will get there - the new dev team has come up with some great stuff - nodes, decent GI, photoreal blur etc.. Once their attention turns to the animation tools, I'm confident they will impress again...

Imatk
08-16-2007, 11:36 AM
Autodesk and Avid (Softimage's parent) both have lots of cash and don't have to worry too much about developing their render engines, given Mental Images and 3rd parties are doing most of the leg work on that side of things.

So they are left to develop the other tools, where as NT has to develop of all aspects of the software.



I think you hit the nail on the head there.

The fact is Autodesk is a MASSIVE machine with huge amounts of cash and a lot more resources than Newtek has at its disposal.

I've read a lot of threads like this. And I totally understand them and if I had my way Newtek would take over the 3d world and no one would use anything else. (That would certainly give me more peace of mind about my job security anyway :) )

But I think Newtek will continue to fill the areas needed that it fills now, at least for a while, because it fills those areas better than anything else. Especially in the world of episodic television. It's simply faster to use Lightwave than Maya or Max or anything else right now.

But it is true that their biggest advantage (at least in my experience) is the quality and speed of the renderer. With apps like VRay getting faster and better and the fact that you don't have to pay per node (another HUGE advantage LW used to own) that advantage is starting to narrow.

So I'm always, and will always, pull for Newtek... but I personally have made the transition to Maya and am finding that it's a pretty darn solid app as well.

Fur, fluids, etc... all built in that work pretty well.

My bread and butter is Lightwave and I hope it stays that way. I truly hope I don't HAVE to work with another app like Maya or Max or whatever but I'm also not going to jam my head in the sand and pretend like it's not a very real possibility. Just my .02 for what it's worth :)

zebrafish
08-16-2007, 01:42 PM
I think you hit the nail on the head there.

The fact is Autodesk is a MASSIVE machine with huge amounts of cash and a lot more resources than Newtek has at its disposal.

I've read a lot of threads like this. And I totally understand them and if I had my way Newtek would take over the 3d world and no one would use anything else. (That would certainly give me more peace of mind about my job security anyway :) )

But I think Newtek will continue to fill the areas needed that it fills now, at least for a while, because it fills those areas better than anything else. Especially in the world of episodic television. It's simply faster to use Lightwave than Maya or Max or anything else right now.

But it is true that their biggest advantage (at least in my experience) is the quality and speed of the renderer. With apps like VRay getting faster and better and the fact that you don't have to pay per node (another HUGE advantage LW used to own) that advantage is starting to narrow.

So I'm always, and will always, pull for Newtek... but I personally have made the transition to Maya and am finding that it's a pretty darn solid app as well.

Fur, fluids, etc... all built in that work pretty well.

My bread and butter is Lightwave and I hope it stays that way. I truly hope I don't HAVE to work with another app like Maya or Max or whatever but I'm also not going to jam my head in the sand and pretend like it's not a very real possibility. Just my .02 for what it's worth :)

Hi Imatk,

At what tasks is LW faster than all the others? modeling? rendering?
certainly not CA....

GandB
08-16-2007, 02:09 PM
I think for the price, LW offers those of us on a limited budget a shot at creating some real comparable work; to those who use the big boys. Personally, I'm looking at some real changes to be out for V10. That's alright by me, since I plan on getting a few other small apps as well; Lightwave will fit in nicely with my pipeline.

I just really wish they'd focus on game development needs a bit more, as they're being left behind when compared to most other apps.

-Keith

zebrafish
08-16-2007, 02:17 PM
I think for the price, LW offers those of us on a limited budget a shot at creating some real comparable work; to those who use the big boys. Personally, I'm looking at some real changes to be out for V10. That's alright by me, since I plan on getting a few other small apps as well; Lightwave will fit in nicely with my pipeline.

I just really wish they'd focus on game development needs a bit more, as they're being left behind when compared to most other apps.

-Keith

What tasks is it faster at?

GandB
08-16-2007, 02:25 PM
I don't remember saying it was faster at anything. However, I do like LW's modeler. The renderer can be a bit slow on my machine (depending on what settings I use) at times, but I only run 1Gig of RAM.

-Keith

Wonderpup
08-16-2007, 03:49 PM
My concern is that NT seem to have, understandably, gone for shorter term consolidation of their strenghs, rather than focus resources on their weaknesess, of which the modeler/layout split is a major source. Fprime was in place, and while not ideal, was plugging the gap quite well for most people.
I would rather have seen the effort going into fundemental change- the early ideas about bringing modeling into layout were the way to go.

To be truly reborn lightwave will need to shed the legacy of it's past and become integrated- for lightwave to live the hub must die (TM:D ).

I have no idea how difficult this is to achieve- even now the two apps only ape each other in superficial ways, under the surface they still seem to me to be quite different animals.

But all of improvements we wish to see on the animation side depend on integration. I can't imagine a serious CA system without mesh editing in layout.

On a more selfish note, having just laid out a lot of cash for XSI I should probably be rooting for more rendering improvements! But I would really love to see a truly reborn lightwave and hope that NT can pull it off.

zebrafish
08-16-2007, 04:01 PM
My concern is that NT seem to have, understandably, gone for shorter term consolidation of their strenghs, rather than focus resources on their weaknesess, of which the modeler/layout split is a major source. Fprime was in place, and while not ideal, was plugging the gap quite well for most people.
I would rather have seen the effort going into fundemental change- the early ideas about bringing modeling into layout were the way to go.

To be truly reborn lightwave will need to shed the legacy of it's past and become integrated- for lightwave to live the hub must die (TM:D ).

I have no idea how difficult this is to achieve- even now the two apps only ape each other in superficial ways, under the surface they still seem to me to be quite different animals.

But all of improvements we wish to see on the animation side depend on integration. I can't imagine a serious CA system without mesh editing in layout.

On a more selfish note, having just laid out a lot of cash for XSI I should probably be rooting for more rendering improvements! But I would really love to see a truly reborn lightwave and hope that NT can pull it off.


Well, since now I know that NT has not really worked on modeler, I'm pretty disappointed. I got version 9.0 mainly because of Vue, so that's ok, but
I'm thinking that xsi might be the way for me to go, in terms of investing my time. I guess I'll keep LW as a rendering option like Pooby does.

I have to keep the number of programs I have to learn down to a minimum,
and not overwhelm msyelf.

zebrafish
08-16-2007, 05:08 PM
I don't quite understand. We're essentially at version 9.3 and as Prospector has already mentioned earlier in the thread... the 9.x cycle is far from over. Jay Roth has I believe already stated in a number of threads and in a general statement that Modeler will be worked on as will the CA tools during the 9.x cycle. If version 10 is announced and we still don't have these improvements, then I could understand your disappointment. At this poiint however, I still believe NT is working on these items.

Maybe I don't have the patience you do. It's been over a year since 9.0
came out, and they only improved the renderer and some texturing??

Meanwhile the "other" programs continue to advance. I just saw on
the xsi forum on cgsociety that softimage might include GATOR and MOTOR
in the foundation version, seeing as how they are now giving those
features away in the free mod tool. Wouldn't that be something?
wow.

Wonderpup
08-16-2007, 05:18 PM
Even that remarkably flexible unit of time known as the 9.x cycle has it's limits if only because NT will need to have something to sell us in 10. I don't see how the new CA stuff could be done without vertex editing in layout and of that there is no sign.

I looked at blender recently and was impressed that it not only allowed joint morph type deforms to be sculpted on a posed model, but even mirrored the morph to the opposite limb! Nice.

Is it that the blender guys are just smarter? I don't think so- but they aren't lumbered with a structure that consists of two seperate apps barely on speaking terms.

Imatk
08-16-2007, 06:05 PM
Hi Imatk,

At what tasks is LW faster than all the others? modeling? rendering?
certainly not CA....

Yes, yes.

No not character animation.

zebrafish
08-16-2007, 06:29 PM
Yes, yes.

No not character animation.

So how could it be faster than the others at modeling, when the
modeling tools are so lacking that you need so many plugins
to do it with any efficiency?

Hm, I understand that the "fastest" title might actually go to Silo....

Imatk
08-16-2007, 06:43 PM
Look I'm not going to get into some kind of argument with you.

It seems to me like you have an axe to grind which is fine... but I'm simply not interested.

Since I DID write it was my .02 it will go ahead and repeat that here... it was my .02 and if you feel differently then... ok.

From my experience in the film and television industry in Los Angeles Lightwave is predominantly used in episodic television because it's faster to get the job done with Lightwave than it is with Maya which is the other leading software app in the VFX world.

That's not to say we don't use Maya and or other applications to do our job as well. We do. We use Maya quite a lot. We also use Realflow and ZBrush and sometimes XSI.

But for rendering and modeling we use Lightwave.

As far as the "fastest" title going to Silo... let me know how many jobs are out there for Silo artists.

Any? I've never even heard of the program being used in any kind of production environment... so obviously my perspective is different from yours.

I'm only commenting on the application and it's use in the VFX business... not other businesses... or hobbies.

zebrafish
08-16-2007, 06:56 PM
Look I'm not going to get into some kind of argument with you.

It seems to me like you have an axe to grind which is fine... but I'm simply not interested.

Since I DID write it was my .02 it will go ahead and repeat that here... it was my .02 and if you feel differently then... ok.

From my experience in the film and television industry in Los Angeles Lightwave is predominantly used in episodic television because it's faster to get the job done with Lightwave than it is with Maya which is the other leading software app in the VFX world.

That's not to say we don't use Maya and or other applications to do our job as well. We do. We use Maya quite a lot. We also use Realflow and ZBrush and sometimes XSI.

But for rendering and modeling we use Lightwave.

As far as the "fastest" title going to Silo... let me know how many jobs are out there for Silo artists.

Any? I've never even heard of the program being used in any kind of production environment... so obviously my perspective is different from yours.

I'm only commenting on the application and it's use in the VFX business... not other businesses... or hobbies.


I am merely sorting it out for myself, and trying to get you to be more
specific about your statements. Is that ok with you?

How many real jobs are out there for LW artists, that are not temporary
freelance jobs?

All right then, I will take it that some people think the LW modeler is ok
as it is. A lot of other people don't think so. Many, many people.

I understand Maya also depends on plugins to improve its modeling.
So you can't really compare LW with its modeling plugins to Maya
without its modeling plugins. That's like reviewers who compare
an ATI graphics card that is not overclocked to an Nvidia card that is.
Take LW's modeling plugins away, then compare it to Maya without
any plugins. What a lot of fun that would be, aye?

Imatk
08-16-2007, 08:14 PM
I am merely sorting it out for myself, and trying to get you to be more
specific about your statements. Is that ok with you?


Sorting it out for yourself? OK so this will be my last post on this because I want to be as specific for you as I possibly can. And to tell you the truth at this point I feel like I'm wasting my time.

I thought I was pretty specific in my last post... but I'll try harder. If this doesn't do it for you then I can't help.



How many real jobs are out there for LW artists, that are not temporary
freelance jobs?


I've been a staff artist at Zoic studios for three years..fulltime. I've been working in the film/television industry for about seven years and more often than not I have to turn down work rather than having to seek it out. There are many others doing the same in Los Angeles. There are more working in the UK and in Canada. And that's just the film/tv business.

As for "temporary feelance jobs" well... that's the nature of the business we work in. If you work in film your work is project based... you want a 9-5 job go work in a bank.

Also since you answered my question with a question... I suspect you know that there's no demand for Silo artists. But we both already knew that didn't we?

Ok... can't think of how I can be more specific than that.



All right then, I will take it that some people think the LW modeler is ok
as it is. A lot of other people don't think so. Many, many people.


And your point is what? If you didn't read my earlier post... please read this time. What I wrote was my opinion. Not yours, not "many, many people's."

My opinion... for what it's worth. If you disagree (as I wrote before) then ok.



I understand Maya also depends on plugins to improve its modeling.
So you can't really compare LW with its modeling plugins to Maya
without its modeling plugins. That's like reviewers who compare
an ATI graphics card that is not overclocked to an Nvidia card that is.
Take LW's modeling plugins away, then compare it to Maya without
any plugins. What a lot of fun that would be, aye?

This simply makes no sense to me. I could care less about someone reviewing either application with or without plugins. I actually use both of them. I don't need to read someone elses opinion to form my own about either piece of software because I make a living using both.

And who said anything about removing plugins? Why on earth would you not use something, a plugin, tool, or application, that would help you accomplish a goal?

I'll stand by my original statement that you are merely trying to "stir the pot" so to speak. If posting pointless arguments about software helps you "sort thigns out" then I hope this has helped you. I suspect it's less you trying to "sort" something out and more that you are simply bored and have nothing better to do.

And while this was entertaining to a degree I now have to go and do something far more interesting like... anything. So best wishes in your reviewing and posting endeavors and I hope I helped... but either way I'm done :thumbsup:

zebrafish
08-16-2007, 10:30 PM
Sorting it out for yourself? OK so this will be my last post on this because I want to be as specific for you as I possibly can. And to tell you the truth at this point I feel like I'm wasting my time.

I thought I was pretty specific in my last post... but I'll try harder. If this doesn't do it for you then I can't help.



I've been a staff artist at Zoic studios for three years..fulltime. I've been working in the film/television industry for about seven years and more often than not I have to turn down work rather than having to seek it out. There are many others doing the same in Los Angeles. There are more working in the UK and in Canada. And that's just the film/tv business.

As for "temporary feelance jobs" well... that's the nature of the business we work in. If you work in film your work is project based... you want a 9-5 job go work in a bank.

Also since you answered my question with a question... I suspect you know that there's no demand for Silo artists. But we both already knew that didn't we?

Ok... can't think of how I can be more specific than that.

And you are trying to diverge attention from my claim that modeling in Silo
is faster. Whatever.




And your point is what? If you didn't read my earlier post... please read this time. What I wrote was my opinion. Not yours, not "many, many people's."

My opinion... for what it's worth. If you disagree (as I wrote before) then ok.



This simply makes no sense to me. I could care less about someone reviewing either application with or without plugins. I actually use both of them. I don't need to read someone elses opinion to form my own about either piece of software because I make a living using both.

And who said anything about removing plugins? Why on earth would you not use something, a plugin, tool, or application, that would help you accomplish a goal?

Yes, it would help one determine which softwares are best equipped out of the box.


I'll stand by my original statement that you are merely trying to "stir the pot" so to speak. If posting pointless arguments about software helps you "sort thigns out" then I hope this has helped you. I suspect it's less you trying to "sort" something out and more that you are simply bored and have nothing better to do.

How suspicious of you. I feel no need then to explain what I'm sorting out
or how or why, nor to convince you of anything since you are being so judgmental.


And while this was entertaining to a degree I now have to go and do something far more interesting like... anything. So best wishes in your reviewing and posting endeavors and I hope I helped... but either way I'm done :thumbsup:


Good!

Cageman
08-17-2007, 01:03 AM
Hi Imatk,

At what tasks is LW faster than all the others? modeling? rendering?
certainly not CA....

In terms of setting up a bonedriven rig, LW is alot faster than Maya, because in LW you do not need to do ANY weightmaps at all. If something doesn't deform as you want, you can easily add a bone. Yes, you end up with alot of bones, but the workflow of adding/removing bones without even thinking about weights is really, really fast. If you would do the same thing in Maya, you have to re-bind the skin for each bone you either add or remove, and possibly also repaint some weights. All in all, LWs implementation has a faster workflow, but in the end it poses alot of limitations, however, in many cases, I've seen that LWs limited architecture is enough to do a good job.

Because of the architecture Maya has, alot of work has to be done to manage the scene (deleting history etc) and making structured scenes in a very detailed way, that hopefully will not mess things up further down the pipe. In a stressfull situation, there are tons of mistakes you as a person can do, and it will screw up things later on. You really need to have a checklist to through. This simply is non-existant in LightWave... there are very few things that can mess up when it comes to rendering with LW.

Hope that answers your question...

colkai
08-17-2007, 03:22 AM
If Silo works for you, go ahead and use it.
Lightwave works for a lot of people, people already in production houses churning out work you see on the TV every week.

The information is out there, given you limited posts and the nature of them here, I have to agree with Jamie, you seem more like simply "having an axe to grind".

If you want things "sorting out" and you hand held whilst everything is explained in minute detail, then don't even contemplate getting into 3D, because that mentality will get you nowhere in a hurry.

If you do want info, it's out there, do a search, it isn't that difficult to find.

zebrafish
08-17-2007, 09:29 AM
In terms of setting up a bonedriven rig, LW is alot faster than Maya, because in LW you do not need to do ANY weightmaps at all. If something doesn't deform as you want, you can easily add a bone. Yes, you end up with alot of bones, but the workflow of adding/removing bones without even thinking about weights is really, really fast. If you would do the same thing in Maya, you have to re-bind the skin for each bone you either add or remove, and possibly also repaint some weights. All in all, LWs implementation has a faster workflow, but in the end it poses alot of limitations, however, in many cases, I've seen that LWs limited architecture is enough to do a good job.

Because of the architecture Maya has, alot of work has to be done to manage the scene (deleting history etc) and making structured scenes in a very detailed way, that hopefully will not mess things up further down the pipe. In a stressfull situation, there are tons of mistakes you as a person can do, and it will screw up things later on. You really need to have a checklist to through. This simply is non-existant in LightWave... there are very few things that can mess up when it comes to rendering with LW.

Hope that answers your question...

Thank you for a well reasoned response, and for your input.

zebrafish
08-17-2007, 09:29 AM
If Silo works for you, go ahead and use it.
Lightwave works for a lot of people, people already in production houses churning out work you see on the TV every week.

The information is out there, given you limited posts and the nature of them here, I have to agree with Jamie, you seem more like simply "having an axe to grind".

If you want things "sorting out" and you hand held whilst everything is explained in minute detail, then don't even contemplate getting into 3D, because that mentality will get you nowhere in a hurry.

If you do want info, it's out there, do a search, it isn't that difficult to find.

Hmmph.